The US invasion of Africa that nobody is talking about.....

[MemorialRedWarrior]

BAU for Aegon and all of his other screen named alter egos.

You continue to implicate me as being one of those other Aegons. I am not just so you know. We are well aware of Aegon on our football board. He's made quite name for himself over there. I personally enjoy his ability to make things interesting.
Does having similar opinions that you particularly have a problem with make you think like this?
Why does having opinions that do not match the media pushed take on topics always fall victim to anger and resentment from those that tend to just go along with the programming? Perhaps you can clue me in on this.

 

[IMCC965]

Always good to hear the latest from the tinfoil hat crowd!

Met a U.S. contractor in Florida a couple of weeks ago. He spends two months at a time in Africa/ME and two months back home. There is U.S. presence in Africa whether you want to believe it or not.

The tinfoil hat is being worn by you because you don't want to accept what's going on.

 

[IMCC965]

There ought to be a law ...

That says any soldier deployed overseas without a declared war is entitled to a million dollar bonus for each year they serve outside of the U.S. Payable upon the end of their enlistment. It would stimulate the economy and/or bring our soldiers home. Either is fine with me.

I would have liked that law………a lot. I'd be a multi-millionaire by now.

 

[Joes Place]

Yes, but you are stuck on the fact that there isn't a process going on here. You deny the fact that that each step taken is part of a plan, a higher goal if you will. It's not like we necessarily disagree at the nature of the design, it's that we disagree how it operates.

That was NEVER part of the discussion. You and HP blathered about 'it is different'.
Then you went off on the Africa tangent, which is totally unrelated to the Middle East, or oil/energy market stability.

Nice to see you've eaten your crow, and finally admitted it.

 

[MemorialRedWarrior]

That was NEVER part of the discussion. You and HP blathered about 'it is different'.
Then you went off on the Africa tangent, which is totally unrelated to the Middle East, or oil/energy market stability.

Nice to see you've eaten your crow, and finally admitted it.

If you fail to see the connection then you fail to see the connection. It was stated numerous times in the articles posted. Are the writers also wrong in their assumptions?

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Met a U.S. contractor in Florida a couple of weeks ago. He spends two months at a time in Africa/ME and two months back home. There is U.S. presence in Africa whether you want to believe it or not.

The tinfoil hat is being worn by you because you don't want to accept what's going on.

There's a lot more than that, and the information was provided in this thread that is undeniable. If ignorant people like Ciggy and his guild are too stupid to see that, then it's just them being dumb as usual.

This has been quietly getting talked about for some time now. This isn't some new wave of information. The problem with Joe's and Ciggy is that they are too ignorant and stubborn to admit it. The strategical placement in ME, is in fact a key to getting more control over Africa, North Africa to be more exact.

Keep in mind, that Ciggy believes that spending with out worrying about paying back debt is a good thing. Then he goes on to complain about Corporate America doing just that.

The most dangerous type of voters are guys like Ciggy. He's too stubborn and ignorant to admit the truth.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

That was NEVER part of the discussion. You and HP blathered about 'it is different'.
Then you went off on the Africa tangent, which is totally unrelated to the Middle East, or oil/energy market stability.

Nice to see you've eaten your crow, and finally admitted it.

You're not really this dumb are you? You do realize North Africa has a rather large oil market correct?. You have no information that is going against anything that you are saying.

You're just flapping off at the mouth, with a bunch of BS, that is all you're doing. You're completely wrong about everything you've said, and what is worse is that you are entirely convinced that you are correct. It's clear that your understanding of international matters pales in comparison to my own. Leave this conversation to the adults kid.

 

[Joes Place]

Yes, but you are stuck on the fact that there isn't a process going on here. You deny the fact that that each step taken is part of a plan, a higher goal if you will. It's not like we necessarily disagree at the nature of the design, it's that we disagree how it operates.

Again....that was never anything I'd implied or stated. You are backtracking, to save face here.

 

[strummingram]

Yes, but you are stuck on the fact that there isn't a process going on here. You deny the fact that that each step taken is part of a plan, a higher goal if you will. It's not like we necessarily disagree at the nature of the design, it's that we disagree how it operates.

And, hopefully, WHY it operates.

 

[Joes Place]

The strategical placement in ME, is in fact a key to getting more control over Africa, North Africa to be more exact.

No. It is not. And I'm sure you've peppered Google with dozens of searches trying to save face here and come up empty.

I'd recommend reading some of the intel from STRATFOR. Google it.

 

[Joes Place]

You're not really this dumb are you? You do realize North Africa has a rather large oil market correct?. You have no information that is going against anything that you are saying.

You're just flapping off at the mouth, with a bunch of BS, that is all you're doing. You're completely wrong about everything you've said, and what is worse is that you are entirely convinced that you are correct. It's clear that your understanding of international matters pales in comparison to my own. Leave this conversation to the adults kid.

Translation:
I look like a complete idiot now, so I'll just start namecalling to deflect.

 

[MemorialRedWarrior]

Again....that was never anything I'd implied or stated. You are backtracking, to save face here.

I don't think so, and most know that is not so. You have been vehemently arguing against the implications of a long drawn out plan. You continue to display an opinion that goes against that plan having involvement with both the ME and Africa.
You appear to be just having fun at this time. Is it your goal to turn this into a round about conversation for the fun of it? Or are you interested in discussing this without playing games?

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Translation:
I look like a complete idiot now, so I'll just start namecalling to deflect.

Nice try there Joey, but I'm the one bringing in proof of my claims, you're just blah, blah, blahing through this. Notice this link Joey pants, notice how they are grouped together and how you can find this grouping on multiple websites such as HUFFPO, etc.

http://www.cfr.org/region/middle-east-and-north-africa/ri165

This is directly from the CFR website, apparently they think that the two relate. You keep trying to move the goal post to fit your narrative. Only one of us has kept it consistent, and it's not you bud.

Concede defeat and get in line with Fred. This day belongs to Prime.

 

[Joes Place]

I don't think so, and most know that is not so. You have been vehemently arguing against the implications of a long drawn out plan. You continue to display an opinion that goes against that plan having involvement with both the ME and Africa.
You appear to be just having fun at this time. Is it your goal to turn this into a round about conversation for the fun of it? Or are you interested in discussing this without playing games?

No. I simply stated our Middle East position was Lather Rinse Repeat. You and your little buddy vehemently argued 'it was different', then proceeded to argue the exact opposite (most recently, that 'North Africa' is about oil).

Most everything you have argued, trying to dispel my comment, has merely shown we are simply repeating the same processes again.

I have never made any statement 'against a long drawn out plan'; but there really isn't one, which is why we've ended up mired in the Middle East (Iraq) for more than a decade, and dramatically upset the balance of power over there into Iran's favor (something which CERTAINLY was NOT part of our 'long term planning').

You guys are just woefully shortsighted and uneducated on geopolitics....

 

[HawktimusPrime]

No. It is not. And I'm sure you've peppered Google with dozens of searches trying to save face here and come up empty.

I'd recommend reading some of the intel from STRATFOR. Google it.

Nope, I want you to post it. My google skills are as good as they come. Show me what you can do Joey.

 

[Joes Place]

Nice try there Joey, but I'm the one bringing in proof of my claims, you're just blah, blah, blahing through this. Notice this link Joey pants, notice how they are grouped together and how you can find this grouping on multiple websites such as HUFFPO, etc.

http://www.cfr.org/region/middle-east-and-north-africa/ri165

This is directly from the CFR website, apparently they think that the two relate. You keep trying to move the goal post to fit your narrative. Only one of us has kept it consistent, and it's not you bud.

Concede defeat and get in line with Fred. This day belongs to Prime.

A fricking webpage with a SECTION on 'Middle East and North Africa' is your evidence???

BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHA!!!
You're a fool.

 

[Joes Place]

Nope, I want you to post it. My google skills are as good as they come. Show me what you can do Joey.

Translation:
"I'm simply too stupid to realize I'm completely lost here."

Jeebus. I'm in an argument with a 6th grader...

 

[MemorialRedWarrior]

No. I simply stated our Middle East position was Lather Rinse Repeat. You and your little buddy vehemently argued 'it was different', then proceeded to argue the exact opposite (most recently, that 'North Africa' is about oil).

Most everything you have argued, trying to dispel my comment, has merely shown we are simply repeating the same processes again.

I have never made any statement 'against a long drawn out plan'; but there really isn't one, which is why we've ended up mired in the Middle East (Iraq) for more than a decade, and dramatically upset the balance of power over there into Iran's favor (something which CERTAINLY was NOT part of our 'long term planning').

You guys are just woefully shortsighted and uneducated on geopolitics....

That's rich that you call some shortsighted, when you are in fact the one not using your vision to see where these operations are going, nor do you take the time to admit how long they have already been going.
False, keep this conversation with me by the way, as this is our debate. You and Hawk can argue with each other, but I would kindly ask you keep the focus on what me and you have said.
There is a long drawn out plan and it is very obvious. Africa itself seems to think so, as do many other countries. China has a plan for Africa and I do not see you denying that fact. Have you never listened to George Bush Sr's plans for the world? Are you familiar with PNAC?
How informed are you with AFRICOM? Are you aware that our President just sent troops into North Africa? Are you aware of the multiple deployments into Africa? Are you under the impression that the Pentagon is simply making this up as they go?
I have not denied that there is a certain degree of repetition. What I am saying is that the repetition is a planned part of a larger plan, nothing more. If there is not a plan, then what do you make of this?


Luis Ramirez
June 29, 2012 8:02 AM

U.S. military leaders are promising a small-scale, but effective plan for dealing with terrorist threats throughout Africa. The head of the military's Africa Command says that U.S. forces are carrying out reconnaissance missions across the continent but Washington has no plans to expand its permanent presence in Africa.

Onboard a U.S. military transport plane ready for takeoff from the airport at Ouagadougou, capital of Burkina Faso are U.S.-trained Burkinabe troops on a training mission to Mali.

x

The airport is the hub of what the Washington Post newspaper recently reported is a growing operations and surveillance network that the U.S. is setting up across much of Africa.

Do you deny that there is a buildup of activity going on? And that it appears to be planned out? Why? How can you deny that with what you are seeing here?
This article was posted in 2012 for further proof of the planning.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

A fricking webpage with a SECTION on 'Middle East and North Africa' is your evidence???

BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHA!!!
You're a fool.

Yet here you go again, becoming a full retard for everyone to see. The information is all over this thread. You are looking like a little schoolgirl who is pouting because someone won't agree with her.

-Is US military involvement in Africa rising?
-Is this happening in just one area or multiple ones?
-How long as this been happening for?
-As there was a lowering of involvement in the ME, did we not also ramp up involvement as that happened?


Answer these questions. Not with your opinion, but with facts. Your ball Joey.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Translation:
"I'm simply too stupid to realize I'm completely lost here."

Jeebus. I'm in an argument with a 6th grader...

Ciggy keeps liking your posts, but as usual he's being a wimp and failing to involve himself in a debate. Afraid of a debate Ciggy? Not too many cowards like you running around buddy.

 

[Joes Place]

That's rich that you call some shortsighted, when you are in fact the one not using your vision to see where these operations are going, nor do you take the time to admit how long they have already been going.
False, keep this conversation with me by the way, as this is our debate. You and Hawk can argue with each other, but I would kindly ask you keep the focus on what me and you have said.
There is a long drawn out plan and it is very obvious. Africa itself seems to think so, as do many other countries. China has a plan for Africa and I do not see you denying that fact. Have you never listened to George Bush Sr's plans for the world? Are you familiar with PNAC?
How informed are you with AFRICOM? Are you aware that our President just sent troops into North Africa? Are you aware of the multiple deployments into Africa? Are you under the impression that the Pentagon is simply making this up as they go?
I have denied that there is a certain degree of repetition. What I am saying is that the repetition is a planned part of a larger plan, nothing more. If there is not a plan, then what do you make of this?


Luis Ramirez
June 29, 2012 8:02 AM

U.S. military leaders are promising a small-scale, but effective plan for dealing with terrorist threats throughout Africa. The head of the military's Africa Command says that U.S. forces are carrying out reconnaissance missions across the continent but Washington has no plans to expand its permanent presence in Africa.

Onboard a U.S. military transport plane ready for takeoff from the airport at Ouagadougou, capital of Burkina Faso are U.S.-trained Burkinabe troops on a training mission to Mali.

x

The airport is the hub of what the Washington Post newspaper recently reported is a growing operations and surveillance network that the U.S. is setting up across much of Africa.

Do you deny that there is a buildup of activity going on? And that it appears to be planned out? Why? How can you deny that with what you are seeing here?
This article was posted in 2012 for further proof of the planning.

Not sure how to make it any clearer to you, but I've stated numerous times that I have not argued AGAINST any long-term US plans.

Yet, somehow, you seem to think that 'colonialism' and propping up governments in line with our US interests is something 'new' (all I did was call it Lather Rinse Repeat and you guys went all nuts that I was wrong, then proceeded to provide dozens of examples which support my statement).

I really recommend you Google STRATFOR, and get some of their free writeups on geopolitics, because you will probably learn something.

 

[Joes Place]

Ciggy keeps liking your posts, but as usual he's being a wimp and failing to involve himself in a debate. Afraid of a debate Ciggy? Not too many cowards like you running around buddy.

It's probably due to the entertainment value you are providing for him....

 

[Joes Place]

Yet here you go again, becoming a full retard for everyone to see. The information is all over this thread. You are looking like a little schoolgirl who is pouting because someone won't agree with her.

-Is US military involvement in Africa rising?
-Is this happening in just one area or multiple ones?
-How long as this been happening for?
-As there was a lowering of involvement in the ME, did we not also ramp up involvement as that happened?


Answer these questions. Not with your opinion, but with facts. Your ball Joey.

You've already fully validated my original premise, and made yourself to look like either a complete fool, or someone with multiple personalities that cannot keep track of what you've posted.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

It's probably due to the entertainment value you are providing for him....

LOLcano. Ciggy has been called out about his passive-aggressive BS for some time now. It's why so many people give him ish about it. I'm not the first person to call him out on his BS. Its happened multiple times from multiple posters. He lacks testosterone I think.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

You've already fully validated my original premise, and made yourself to look like either a complete fool, or someone with multiple personalities that cannot keep track of what you've posted.

Sure thing Joey, you seem to be keeping track of what I'm saying just fine buddy. You've been trying and failing to argue against me for quite awhile now.

 

[Joes Place]

Sure thing Joey, you seem to be keeping track of what I'm saying just fine buddy. You've been trying and failing to argue against me for quite awhile now.

HP: "Africa is not about oil"

then later-
HP: "North Africa is about oil"

It's really hard to keep track of which HP I'm conversing with. How many voices are in there???

 

[MemorialRedWarrior]

Not sure how to make it any clearer to you, but I've stated numerous times that I have not argued AGAINST any long-term US plans.

Yet, somehow, you seem to think that 'colonialism' and propping up governments in line with our US interests is something 'new' (all I did was call it Lather Rinse Repeat and you guys went all nuts that I was wrong, then proceeded to provide dozens of examples which support my statement).

I really recommend you Google STRATFOR, and get some of their free writeups on geopolitics, because you will probably learn something.

It doesn't appear that I'm the one that needs to learn something. If you deny that the ME stability was not part of gaining control in Africa, or North Africa if you will, then you are in fact denying the planned spread throughout Africa.
Never once did I say that propping up regimes as being something new. You're reaching here, and I doubt your ability to do much more as this conversation continues. The lather, rinse, repeat, was not refuted, it was simply noted that there is a greater plan, and that it included the repeat of certain processes.
I also am perplexed as to why you are suggesting looking up STRATFOR? I am very familiar with it, and it is argues what I'm saying. So why suggest that to me? I don't understand that method to this debate at all.

 

[Joes Place]

It doesn't appear that I'm the one that needs to learn something. If you deny that the ME stability was not part of gaining control in Africa, or North Africa if you will, then you are in fact denying the planned spread throughout Africa.

If you actually read any STRATFOR, you'd know that they, themselves, even state there is no strategic value in North Africa vs. the rest of the continent, because the areas are simply NOT land-traversable.

Nor is it land-traversable from the Middle East area we were originally discussing (Syria/Iraq/ISIS controlled areas) and North Africa. Yet, you continue to perpetuate the myth that they are strategically land-connected, and somehow strategically related.

"Middle East stability" was all about getting Iraqi oil out of the Middle East and onto tankers to ship to the rest of the world. Stability in that region makes oil prices more stable, and takes away Saudi Arabia's influence over oil pricing. NOTHING to do with Africa. Period. You ALREADY ADMITTED that Africa was about uranium and rare earth metals.

I simply cannot keep up with your dyslexia and ADD here. You have no clue what you are talking about, and cannot maintain a consistent argument.

 

[MemorialRedWarrior]

If you actually read any STRATFOR, you'd know that they, themselves, even state there is no strategic value in North Africa vs. the rest of the continent, because the areas are simply NOT land-traversable.

Nor is it land-traversable from the Middle East area we were originally discussing (Syria/Iraq/ISIS controlled areas) and North Africa. Yet, you continue to perpetuate the myth that they are strategically land-connected, and somehow strategically related.

"Middle East stability" was all about getting Iraqi oil out of the Middle East and onto tankers to ship to the rest of the world. Stability in that region makes oil prices more stable, and takes away Saudi Arabia's influence over oil pricing. NOTHING to do with Africa. Period. You ALREADY ADMITTED that Africa was about uranium and rare earth metals.

I simply cannot keep up with your dyslexia and ADD here. You have no clue what you are talking about, and cannot maintain a consistent argument.

Once again, that's rich from someone who keeps changing his position. You by the way pointed me towards STRATFOR, without going over it yourself. Which had you of, you would know it supports the planned operations for Iraq, and even has articles detailing ME connections to that.
I actually have read it, and it very much has a great collection of articles that specifically speak of our involvement in Africa, and even has the listings of articles dated so that you can see how the progress went as time also went.
You do realize that having military bases in the ME, permanent ones by the way, makes it much easier to keep soldiers close to the area? You do also realize that many of the troops, special forces, etc, came directly from those bases? That right there negates everything you just said.
Do you have any military experience to speak of? Because you seem to be implying that you are familiar with these types of operations.
You'll get no argument from me about the oil argument in the ME, as I think that is a closed case at this point. That is simply a piece of the puzzle. Africa is more than just Uranium and rare earth metals by the way. There is MUCH more to it than that, and yes it does include oil.

 

[MemorialRedWarrior]

Here is an excerpt explaining more about our operations.

"Since 2007, Pentagon planners have secretly enhanced the U.S. military footprint across Africa, by dispatching special intelligence units, drone-launching technicians and Special Forces teams to “dark” bases in Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia. Since then the U.S. has been rapidly increasing its presence, which could be used to strike at groups allegedly threatening U.S. interests, which effectively means oil and mining operations. It has become clear, however, that the U.S., using its military and technological assets as well as mercenaries and Special Forces teams from “friendly” African countries, would not be in a position of dealing with tribal and ethnic conflicts, which have always defined much of the violence across Africa. "

http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-...-news-and-a-licence-to-lie-is-hollywoods-gift

 

[HawktimusPrime]

HP: "Africa is not about oil"

then later-
HP: "North Africa is about oil"

It's really hard to keep track of which HP I'm conversing with. How many voices are in there???

When did I say it wasn't about oil?

 

[Joes Place]

Once again, that's rich from someone who keeps changing his position. You by the way pointed me towards STRATFOR, without going over it yourself. Which had you of, you would know it supports the planned operations for Iraq, and even has articles detailing ME connections to that.
I actually have read it, and it very much has a great collection of articles that specifically speak of our involvement in Africa, and even has the listings of articles dated so that you can see how the progress went as time also went.
You do realize that having military bases in the ME, permanent ones by the way, makes it much easier to keep soldiers close to the area? You do also realize that many of the troops, special forces, etc, came directly from those bases? That right there negates everything you just said.
Do you have any military experience to speak of? Because you seem to be implying that you are familiar with these types of operations.
You'll get no argument from me about the oil argument in the ME, as I think that is a closed case at this point. That is simply a piece of the puzzle. Africa is more than just Uranium and rare earth metals by the way. There is MUCH more to it than that, and yes it does include oil.

Once again....this ALL started out with a discussion on ISIS, and Putin's involvement in Syria.

I am not the one who tried to connect that to Africa. And I'M changing my position?
You've been all over the map (quite literally).

Our bases in Iraq have NOTHING TO DO with Africa, because you CANNOT ACCESS Africa from them. They are entirely to deal with Iran, and local issues. Stratfor stated that years ago. You don't even know what you are arguing anymore.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Once again....this ALL started out with a discussion on ISIS, and Putin's involvement in Syria.

I am not the one who tried to connect that to Africa. And I'M changing my position?
You've been all over the map (quite literally).

Our bases in Iraq have NOTHING TO DO with Africa, because you CANNOT ACCESS Africa from them. They are entirely to deal with Iran, and local issues. Stratfor stated that years ago. You don't even know what you are arguing anymore.

If I may interrupt here, which I will anyways, deal with it Joey. The argument has become does the ME have connection with what is going on in Africa? It does, end of story. Go get a beer Joey.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Once again....this ALL started out with a discussion on ISIS, and Putin's involvement in Syria.

I am not the one who tried to connect that to Africa. And I'M changing my position?
You've been all over the map (quite literally).

Our bases in Iraq have NOTHING TO DO with Africa, because you CANNOT ACCESS Africa from them. They are entirely to deal with Iran, and local issues. Stratfor stated that years ago. You don't even know what you are arguing anymore.

Also to further my interrupting point. Planes moron, Planes. There is in fact a land way into Africa BTW. Go get that beer.

P.S. We us our military bases in other countries as staging points for deployments all the time Joey. Maybe if you had served like I have, you would know that.

 

[Joes Place]

When did I say it wasn't about oil?

Uh....when you AGREED that our push into sub-Saharan Africa (the MULTIPLE articles you'd posted) isn't about OIL, but about uranium and rare earth metal resources.....

Then, you waffled AGAIN and started talking about North Africa (which compeletly goes against many of the articles you've posted, which are NOT North African countries).

And you continue to babble about how these are all strategically connected, like a drive from Davenport to Des Moines, when they are not remotely close to accessible over land, which is WHY the US is working to establish bases in those areas (and why a base in Iraq is totally irrelevant to the topic, yet you continue to babble about how 'key' our bases in the Middle East are).

Not sure what color the sky is in your world, but you certainly do NOT have a grasp on the 'big picture' here by any stretch. And linking a news site that carries a header 'Middle East and Africa' is HARDLY evidence that they are strategically linked. That particular post is about as moronic as I've seen this week.....probably this year.

 

[Joes Place]

Also to further my interrupting point. Planes moron, Planes. There is in fact a land way into Africa BTW. Go get that beer.

HA!!

No. You don't impose military might with 'planes'. You do it with a Navy that can boat all the supplies in. Wow. You are truly delusional on understanding military basics, as well as basic geography.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

HA!!

No. You don't impose military might with 'planes'. You do it with a Navy that can boat all the supplies in. Wow. You are truly delusional on understanding military basics, as well as basic geography.

You deploy with planes genius. Most of the troops going in are special forces.

 

[Joes Place]

If I may interrupt here, which I will anyways, deal with it Joey.

Translation: I've been checkmated 20 times in a row here.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Translation: I've been checkmated 20 times in a row here.

The correct phrase would be 'you've had me in check' 20 times in a row. Which yes, I have had you in check the moment you decided to enter this thread. Joey, go get a beer. I haven't quite went for the checkmate yet. Despite you gleefully leading yourself into that.

 

[Joes Place]

You deploy with planes genius. Most of the troops going in are special forces.

No. You don't. It's WAY more inefficient. You do it with naval power and boats. Which is PRECISELY why the NAVY is the one doing most of the setup work in Africa.

And I know people who have been deployed on those missions which originated from the San Diego carrier groups; they've been doing it for > a decade. It's all about SEA power, not AIR power to set those strategic areas up. You seem to understand less of this the more you post....